|
Comments:
Eric - 2004-05-05 23:25:09 This is in response to David's comment. I'm sure that Laura doesn't have anything against the notion of people restoring beautiful, big old houses (she has commented before regarding the beauty of their architecture); The main issue is that if a group is touting itself as a local historic preservation organization, then they are obliged by duty to the community to speak out against the destruction of any historic property, especially something as important as the mill. Also, not to put too socialist a spin on it, but many would argue that the city fathers' names you listed didn't build anything, but rather invested some capital here and there (admittedly affecting history), while thousands of faceless, nameless citizens were the ones that 'built ypsilanti'. That said, I agree with your point about all of us being a bit too late, and learning a lesson. I would love to know what the property sold for, as that seems to be the main issue which set the current state of affairs in motion: the company building the apartments was only CONSIDERING buying it when they hatched their deal with city council, and supposedly (per a council member i spoke with) they were the first firm in those years willing to buy the property for any purpose at all. * * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-05-06 10:36:04 thanks Brett--(oops, did you mean "Eric" and not "David"?--or perhaps I am overlooking some comment by David somewhere...) I did speak a bit too roughly, or it came off that way, anyways. And talk is cheap and I sometimes have a big mouth. But disregarding all that do you know what I'd love to see? Once-a-month mill tours a la the Rouge, which I'm also dying to see. School groups could visit the paper mill...individuals...that would be awesome. It would have to be detoxified and so forth and checked for safety and all that but wouldn't that be cool? It would also be a unique attraction in the area, so I think it would have a draw just for its uniqueness. The "aquarium room" on northeast corner could be a small museum/gift shop. Completely unrealistic, too late, and hideously expensive to detoxify--but I'd love that! * * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-05-06 10:44:08 yes, i meant to say 'eric'...apparently some mysterious gentleman named david hijacked my brain for a moment. I think the mill would have been a great historical museum, but is big enough that it could have had great multi-use functions as well, such as offices, coffeehouse, microbreweries, shops, etc., all under the same roof! As I pointed out to the city council member, to which he has failed to reply, I doubt the cost of de-toxifying the mill would have been more than the cost of demolishing it, burying it, and then building a new structure from scratch. Plus, another issue in this complex dillema is that the much-touted 'Brownfield reclamation plan' simply requires them to bury toxic waste a certain number of feet below ground, where they found it. So the new apartments will still have all this waste beneath them for the next aeon or so, following the current plan (this is also what they're going to do at the Water Street Project).* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-05-06 10:54:23 I also have wondered about the toxins--right next to the river in both cases! I doubt it's feasible/possible to contain all that stuff from leaching, and it seems more advisable to me to have a light-use facility rather than a heavy-use residential facility on top of a formerly toxic site, just from the standpoint of the toxins. It is interesting about the brownfield procedure--I had thought they were required to remove *all* of the soil determined to be contaminated, not just bury it... The multiuse "Mill Mall" is an intriguing idea. Or would have been. As you say, the whole question is complex.* * * * * * * * * * * * brett - 2004-05-06 11:43:07 here's a good article summarizing the current state of brownfield development: http://www.ecocenter.org/200004/land.shtml in reference to water street, the story has this quote: "Rather than removing the [contaminated]soil, developers moved it elsewhere within the property, using it for grading and berms, "and capping it with a sufficient depth of clean soil so that there would be no danger or public contact with those materials." * * * * * * * * * * * * Larry Kestenbaum - 2004-05-12 23:35:49 Strongly, strongly agreed about preservation of ancient industrial buildings, prisons and other sites that are not necessarily high-style homes. Prisons? Yes. If you ever get to Philadelphia, don't miss the Eastern State Penitentiary, just a few blocks form the fine art museum. It was built around 1820 as the very first modern prison, with cell blocks and solitary confinement. (The star shaped layout is distinctive: I recognized it from the plane flying in.) It was the gentle Quaker notion of a "penitentiary" for offenders to meditate on their crimes, as opposed to flogging or executing them. They invented the idea of imprisonment as an alternative to violent punishment. As it turned out, though, solitary confinement with no human contact drove the inmates insane. When Charles Dickens came to America in 1842, he specifically wanted to see two things: Niagara Falls and Eastern State Penitentiary. Eastern State is mostly a ruin now, but a fascinating one. It narrowly escaped being largely demolished and turned into a shopping mall, because the city's then-mayor understood that the unlovely site was too important to lose.* * * * * * * * * * * * Laura - 2004-05-13 08:24:58 Tell you the truth I'd rather go see this 1820 prison than the art museum! It sounds amazing. Pretty much worth a weekend trip, actually, I'd say! Thanks Larry.* * * * * * * * * * * * Free-Access - 2004-09-04 21:59:20 Access Free* * * * * * * * * * * * BRIDES-RUSSIAN - 2004-10-03 08:24:23 BRIDES RUSSIAN* * * * * * * * * * * * add your comment: |